This will be my last post in this thread about Atmos.

I can understand Atmos for film or early adapters who want to get Atmos mixing work since Dolby and Apple is bullying everyone into this.

But why do we as mixing engineers need to buy a ton of new speakers and a new audio interface when 99% of music fans are listening on headphones?

You can say what you want, "Atmos on headphones are audible (if you believe that)", or "Atmos is somewhat audible on headphones", or "buy these 'special' headphones", the fact of the matter is that music fans listen on headphones (special or not) which do not translate what an Atmos mix sound like in a proper Atmos mixing room with a ton of speakers.

The Yamaha NS10s were the industry standard for a reason. It represented an average (apart from many other wonderful qualities) of the hifi speakers consumers were listening on at the time. Therefore, translating very well.

A room with a ton of speakers is NOT the answer. The answer is mixing the way users listen to their music which is on headphones.

This really is the biggest stunt Dolby and Apple has ever pulled on the music industry. I don't like it.

Atmos and Apple Spatial should not be a technology these corporations use to bully engineers into spending money they absolutely do not need to spend since music fans LISTEN ON STEREO HEADPHONES! If it ends up stereo anyway for headphones, why can't these binaural mixes just be baked into a normal stereo file?

Yes, I know the story, some supposed magic algorithm under the hood of Apple and Dolby to give you spatial binaural audio. Oh please, if the signal is connected with three wires to a headphone and give you stereo in the left and right ear, there's absolutely no magic that could not have already happened during the mix. The only magic here is that Apple and Dolby are managing to gaslight so many users for profits.

edlane1 wroteThis will be my last post in this thread about Atmos.

I can understand Atmos for film or early adapters who want to get Atmos mixing work since Dolby and Apple is bullying everyone into this.

But why do we as mixing engineers need to buy a ton of new speakers and a new audio interface when 99% of music fans are listening on headphones?

You can say what you want, "Atmos on headphones are audible (if you believe that)", or "Atmos is somewhat audible on headphones", or "buy these 'special' headphones", the fact of the matter is that music fans listen on headphones (special or not) which do not translate what an Atmos mix sound like in a proper Atmos mixing room with a ton of speakers.

The Yamaha NS10s were the industry standard for a reason. It represented an average (apart from many other wonderful qualities) of the hifi speakers consumers were listening on at the time. Therefore, translating very well.

A room with a ton of speakers is NOT the answer. The answer is mixing the way users listen to their music which is on headphones.

This really is the biggest stunt Dolby and Apple has ever pulled on the music industry. I don't like it.

Atmos and Apple Spatial should not be a technology these corporations use to bully engineers into spending money they absolutely do not need to spend since music fans LISTEN ON STEREO HEADPHONES! If it ends up stereo anyway for headphones, why can't these binaural mixes just be baked into a normal stereo file?

Yes, I know the story, some supposed magic algorithm under the hood of Apple and Dolby to give you spatial binaural audio. Oh please, if the signal is connected with three wires to a headphone and give you stereo in the left and right ear, there's absolutely no magic that could not have already happened during the mix. The only magic here is that Apple and Dolby are managing to gaslight so many users for profits.

You don't have to buy speakers. You don't have to do anything, there is no requirement for you to mix in ATMOS.

And for those who do want to mix in ATMOS without a many-speaker setup, it's perfectly ok to mix on headphones via the binaural headphone mix. it works.

You can say it's magic, or doesn't work, or whatever you want to. But it is a similar environment and experience as what the majority of listeners will consume. Therefore it is a perfectly legitimate way to mix ATMOS audio.

I think it works pretty well and even if you have a many-speaker setup, you should check your ATMOS mixes in a binaural headphone mix as it needs to sound good in that environment. But none of this is a requirement, it's a choice...

And, mixing on NS10s is also a choice. I've mixed on them, I don't like them and don't get better results by using them. NS10s are not a magic algorithm and are not a technology these corporations should use to bully engineers into spending money on them.

edlane1 wroteThis will be my last post in this thread about Atmos.

I can understand Atmos for film or early adapters who want to get Atmos mixing work since Dolby and Apple is bullying everyone into this.

But why do we as mixing engineers need to buy a ton of new speakers and a new audio interface when 99% of music fans are listening on headphones?

You can say what you want, "Atmos on headphones are audible (if you believe that)", or "Atmos is somewhat audible on headphones", or "buy these 'special' headphones", the fact of the matter is that music fans listen on headphones (special or not) which do not translate what an Atmos mix sound like in a proper Atmos mixing room with a ton of speakers.

The Yamaha NS10s were the industry standard for a reason. It represented an average (apart from many other wonderful qualities) of the hifi speakers consumers were listening on at the time. Therefore, translating very well.

A room with a ton of speakers is NOT the answer. The answer is mixing the way users listen to their music which is on headphones.

This really is the biggest stunt Dolby and Apple has ever pulled on the music industry. I don't like it.

Atmos and Apple Spatial should not be a technology these corporations use to bully engineers into spending money they absolutely do not need to spend since music fans LISTEN ON STEREO HEADPHONES! If it ends up stereo anyway for headphones, why can't these binaural mixes just be baked into a normal stereo file?

Yes, I know the story, some supposed magic algorithm under the hood of Apple and Dolby to give you spatial binaural audio. Oh please, if the signal is connected with three wires to a headphone and give you stereo in the left and right ear, there's absolutely no magic that could not have already happened during the mix. The only magic here is that Apple and Dolby are managing to gaslight so many users for profits.

The point I was trying to make is that Atmos may not work for You on standard headphones. Did you attempt the experiment? Can you locate the direction of sound without moving your head? You may fall in the category of people who have to move their heads, maybe only a few degrees at most, to locate sound. If that's the case then surround panning baked into a stereo mix won't work for you like it would work for people who don't rely on head movement for locating sounds.

As for not following the Atmos crowd that's a decision like any decision: It may work out for the best, or maybe not. It's a free world (at least regarding Atmos )

SwitchBack wroteThe point I was trying to make is that Atmos may not work for You on standard headphones. Did you attempt the experiment? Can you locate the direction of sound without moving your head? You may fall in the category of people who have to move their heads, maybe only a few degrees at most, to locate sound. If that's the case then surround panning baked into a stereo mix won't work for you like it would work for people who don't rely on head movement for locating sounds.

As for not following the Atmos crowd that's a decision like any decision: It may work out for the best, or maybe not. It's a free world (at least regarding Atmos )

Yes, I have tried the experiment, and yes I can locate the sound. Binaural sound in headphones works quite well for me, without any special equipment.

And yes, so far it's free in all the places I frequent. Although I read where in Chechnya they have banned songs that are either too slow or too fast, so I'm not sure about ATMOS in the rest of the world

<<But why do we as mixing engineers need to buy a ton of new speakers and a new audio interface when 99% of music fans are listening on headphones?>>

Exactly. Mix for people who listen on headphones. That's the whole point of binaural audio.

<<The fact of the matter is that music fans listen on headphones (special or not) which do not translate what an Atmos mix sound like in a proper Atmos mixing room with a ton of speakers.>>

Correct. They translate part of what Atmos delivers in a mixing room with a ton of speakers. That part is significant enough to add depth and breadth that stereo simply cannot deliver, because its audio is not binaural.

<<The answer is mixing the way users listen to their music which is on headphones.>>

Exactly! I think you might be missing a very important point. Atmos is not a waveform. It's not audio. It's metadata that tells waveforms how to play back through a rendering process. One of the Atmos options is rendering as binaural, which is optimized for headphones. Another is rendering as conventional stereo.

<<music fans LISTEN ON STEREO HEADPHONES! If it ends up stereo anyway for headphones, why can't these binaural mixes just be baked into a normal stereo file?>>

Stereo, dual mono, mid-side, and Atmos are all baked into a two-channel file.

<<Yes, I know the story, some supposed magic algorithm under the hood of Apple and Dolby to give you spatial binaural audio.>>

No, it's not a magic algorithm that's unique to Dolby and Apple. Binaural recording dates back to 1881, when a binaural system was created so people could listen to concerts from the Opera Garnier theater over the telephone. Then, as now, they needed separate transducers for the left and right ears - or as you call them, "headphones." The modern, pop music binaural era started 45 years ago in 1978, when Lou Reed released "Street Hassle." This was the first commercially produced binaural pop record. Audibook platforms (like Audible) often use binaural recording to give more of a "you are there" vibe.

Binaural audio is also at the heart of the Waves NX, Sonarworks, and Slate VSX emulations for hearing the sound created by studio monitors in a studio's control room while listening on headphones. Those simulations are uncanny. Binaural audio has NOTHING to do with Dolby and Apple, other than being included as one of many possible rendering targets within the Atmos spec.

I hope that helps explains some of the reasons why I like mixing on headphones with binaural audio so much, aside from the fact that YouTube can't support true multichannel files so this is the next best thing. It's better than stereo when listening on headphones, which is frankly what matters to me. I don't have a full-blown surround system and multiple speakers, nor do I feel the need for it at this time. I render in stereo for those who want to listen over speakers, and binaural for those who listen over headphones.

The post I've been quoting from edlane1 proves one thing: Dolby and Apple have done a horrible job of explaining what Atmos actually is and how it works. I recommend ignoring the marketing, and checking out what the actual technology can, and cannot, do. Atmos has been oversold IMHO but that doesn't invalidate what's admirable about it.

Just a quick question, if I may - apologies if I sound like a bit of a thickie here

Nothing to do with Atmos (I think), but what is the actual difference between Stereo and Binaural?

Anderton wroteI render in stereo for those who want to listen over speakers, and binaural for those who listen over headphones.

So, why the choices in this case?

And to get back to Atmos, I had a go with the Surround Delay FX (which I understand to 'do Atmos'), and it did have the effect of making more distant sound (in this case a distant Mellotron choir ) slightly more distant/expansive. I wouldn't want to use it all the time, sometimes I want to use other delays/reverbs. This I tried on speakers, haven't yet tried on phones, and just tried a few of the presets.

Seems to me that the answer to this topic is if you like and approve of Atmos, then use it. If you don't, then don't use it - simples
(my tuppence-worth)

Atmos output to headphones uses the same 'tricks' the brain is using to translate the left-right info from the ears into perception of distance and direction. Binaural does it too, to some extent. But not all brains are wired/trained the same way (see my earlier posts). For those who can hear distance/direction whilst keeping their heads absolutely still Atmos is likely to produce a realistic depth/direction image for normal headphones. But for those who hear distance/direction by (also) instinctively moving their heads slightly it probably won't work.

I suggested an experiment to check how your brain is wired. If you're a 'head mover' then Atmos for standard headphones may still give you a 'wider' or 'deeper' perception but it will be hard or even impossible to get the full spatial image. If that's you then give Apple's head tracking phones a try. They should provide the 'slight head movement' feedback you won't get from standard phones.

In a multiple speaker setup the 'no head movement' problem is non-existent of course. Atmos still uses the brain tricks but now it can do it in a 2D or 3D box

leosutherland wroteNothing to do with Atmos (I think), but what is the actual difference between Stereo and Binaural?

This is an often misunderstood aspect of audio. Both are two-channel formats. Binaural recordings use a dummy head with mics inside replicas of the human ear. The way our ears are constructed, they pick up frequency response, phase, level, and timing differences between the two ears. Our brain uses this information to locate sounds. For example, we know a sound is to our left because it arrives at our right ear a few milliseconds later, with fewer highs because our head acts as a filter, and at a lower level. This is why what we hear in the physical world is "3D" sound.

Stereo recordings do not inherently include the cues that allow for location. We can create artificial cues like panning, EQ, delay, etc. but it's extremely difficult to replicate the effect of a binaural recording with conventional stereo.

Now, what this has to do with Atmos...a full Atmos surround system inherently provides location cues, because like real life, the sound is all around us. Atmos can render surround projects in multiple formats. One of these is "pretending" that the surround project is a binaural recording. It then renders the surround sounds as if they had been recorded with a binaural dummy head. So, we hear binaural audio with headphones. The reason for having to use headphones is, among other things, to not confuse the binaural sound with locational cues that occur from playing speakers in a room.

leosutherland wroteSeems to me that the answer to this topic is if you like and approve of Atmos, then use it. If you don't, then don't use it - simples
(my tuppence-worth)

Yes, similarly to how some people prefer mono to stereo. There's nothing wrong with that. My main concern is that there is so much misunderstanding about what Atmos is that I don't think some people ever get the chance to find out whether they do actually like it or not, because they've already dismissed it out of hand. I did until I was able to actually work with it. Prior to Studio One 6.5, my experience with Atmos was listening to remixes I didn't like. However, once I experienced working with Atmos in a project from the beginning, my attitude changed.

As pointed out earlier, you can even appropriate some of Atmos's advantages when doing a conventional stereo mix.

Thank you for all your friendly replies to my comment. (I decided to post again since I was misunderstood)

I understand exactly what Atmos is and that it can't be literally baked into a stereo file - I meant the binaural effect can be baked in, making Atmos (or Apple Spatial) as an 'overlord' pointless. Imagine taking your stereo output (after mixing with Atmos) from your interface's headphone output and recording it as a stereo wave file, it's still a stereo (binaural if you want) file - I hope I am bringing my point across now.

The point I wanted to make was that since it ends up stereo (or binaural) on headphones anyway, why is Atmos needed if you can get the same result with binaural plugins and processes in a regular DAW with Dear Reality or plenty other plugins like it?

If you can get the same result (which you certainly can) without Atmos and Apple Spatial, why are these companies pushing this as a licensed-red-taped technology (very typical of Apple) designed for their own profit?

What is the benefit of Atmos/Apple Spatial Audio for headphones if this type of headphone mix can be created without the 'overlord' technology?

The benefit, probably, is the promise that it will be everywhere. Just like RIAA and Dolby B/C is for vinyl and tape, and mp3 encoding for audio files. Licensed use of IP in that respect is nothing new either. The big question that remains is if it really will be everywhere

edlane1 wroteImagine taking your stereo output (after mixing with Atmos) from your interface's headphone output and recording it as a stereo wave file, it's still a stereo (binaural if you want) file - I hope I am bringing my point across now.

Probably the most technically correct way to say what you're describing is "a two-channel file containing binaural Atmos audio" as opposed to "a two-channel file containing stereo audio" or "a two-channel file containing mid-side audio." I think those descriptions have the least ambiguity.

edlane1 wroteThe point I wanted to make was that since it ends up stereo (or binaural) on headphones anyway, why is Atmos needed if you can get the same result with binaural plugins and processes in a regular DAW with Dear Reality or plenty other plugins like it?

...and that's a totally valid point. You can do what Atmos binaural does in plenty of other ways, as has been done since the 1800s. But...

edlane1 wroteWhat is the benefit of Atmos/Apple Spatial Audio for headphones if this type of headphone mix can be created without the 'overlord' technology?

First, I have not worked with Apple's Spatial Audio, so I won't comment other than to say I believe it's game/VR oriented more than music.

Second, I don't think of Atmos as being "for headphones." I think of the binaural headphone aspects as another facet. Atmos can do complicated surround, simple surround, Cine 3, be used in movie theaters, home theaters, demos, and...headphones because it can render to binaural. So, it's a one-size-fits-whatever-your-production-is solution that's very convenient. Think of it this way. You record an audio file at 192 kHz/24-bit. You can downsample it to 96 kHz for Blu-Ray, 44.1/16-bit for CDs, do lossless FLAC compression, lossy MP3 compression, etc. So, if you're creating a higih-end surround project in 9.1.4 for movies, you can tell Atmos to create a 5.1 soundtrack for home theater, conventional stereo for CDs or broadcast, binaural for headphones, etc.

Granted, the usefulness of Atmos is considerably diminished for consumers if surround doesn't take off as a consumer format (it never has in the past). But remember, Atmos is already installed in over 10,000 theaters, so it's not going anywhere for a while. Meanwhile, just as our DAWs live off the scraps from the personal computer table, we can live off the scraps of 9.4.1-oriented Atmos systems by using a free, built-in protocol (in the case of Studio One) to create binaural mixes for headphones in a convenient way.

Make sense?

Anderton wrote

edlane1 wroteImagine taking your stereo output (after mixing with Atmos) from your interface's headphone output and recording it as a stereo wave file, it's still a stereo (binaural if you want) file - I hope I am bringing my point across now.

Probably the most technically correct way to say what you're describing is "a two-channel file containing binaural Atmos audio" as opposed to "a two-channel file containing stereo audio" or "a two-channel file containing mid-side audio." I think those descriptions have the least ambiguity.

edlane1 wroteThe point I wanted to make was that since it ends up stereo (or binaural) on headphones anyway, why is Atmos needed if you can get the same result with binaural plugins and processes in a regular DAW with Dear Reality or plenty other plugins like it?

...and that's a totally valid point. You can do what Atmos binaural does in plenty of other ways, as has been done since the 1800s. But...

edlane1 wroteWhat is the benefit of Atmos/Apple Spatial Audio for headphones if this type of headphone mix can be created without the 'overlord' technology?

First, I have not worked with Apple's Spatial Audio, so I won't comment other than to say I believe it's game/VR oriented more than music.

Second, I don't think of Atmos as being "for headphones." I think of the binaural headphone aspects as another facet. Atmos can do complicated surround, simple surround, Cine 3, be used in movie theaters, home theaters, demos, and...headphones because it can render to binaural. So, it's a one-size-fits-whatever-your-production-is solution that's very convenient. Think of it this way. You record an audio file at 192 kHz/24-bit. You can downsample it to 96 kHz for Blu-Ray, 44.1/16-bit for CDs, do lossless FLAC compression, lossy MP3 compression, etc. So, if you're creating a higih-end surround project in 9.1.4 for movies, you can tell Atmos to create a 5.1 soundtrack for home theater, conventional stereo for CDs or broadcast, binaural for headphones, etc.

Granted, the usefulness of Atmos is considerably diminished for consumers if surround doesn't take off as a consumer format (it never has in the past). But remember, Atmos is already installed in over 10,000 theaters, so it's not going anywhere for a while. Meanwhile, just as our DAWs live off the scraps from the personal computer table, we can live off the scraps of 9.4.1-oriented Atmos systems by using a free, built-in protocol (in the case of Studio One) to create binaural mixes for headphones in a convenient way.

Make sense?

Yes. I agree with you on every point. All good and valid - mixing with this technology and then folding it down to stereo/binaural makes sense.

Totally over engineered for headphone consumers, but if it can separate elements better and create more movement/excitement/dimension in a mix benefitting a normal stereo headphone listening experience, I can learn to appreciate it.

Your main point (for me at least) was that it's free for us to use and mix with (on headphones), not considering the cost of a full-fledged Atmos mixing room, so let's give Apple and Dolby the benefit of the doubt for that. I'll stop my whining now.

I have a small mixing/composition room (spare bedroom), about 11’ x 10.5’, moderately treated (several 2’ x 4’ x 2” panels from Acoustimac, plus natural diffusion from stuff in bookshelves and the room). Decent-sounding room for mixing, recording vocals, etc.

I recently set up what you could call a “budget” Atmos monitoring system, for the purpose of learning how to mix Atmos and hopefully offering it as a service. I thought some folks might be interested in how much it cost. Here’s a rundown:

MOTU 828es audio interface -- I already owned it (original cost $1000)
Behringer ADA8200 ADAT output expander $220
11 x IK Multimedia MTM monitors @$300 $3300
M-audio 8” subwoofer -- already owned (Presonus subs run ~$200-400)
Cables, mic stands, adapters, AC power strips, speaker ceiling mounts ~$300-400

To keep things simple, I run Left - Right - Center and LFE from the 828es, and the 8 surround outputs from the ADA8200. I also invested in Ginger Audio’s Sphere software monitor controller. Marcus Huyskens has a video on setting this up with Studio One. Not absolutely necessary, but as a learning tool Sphere is great for reverse engineering Atmos mixes streamed from Apple Music. It lets you see (and solo) exactly which channels were used and for what purpose.

So the total was a little over $4000, not counting the 828es or the Sphere software, assuming a studio owner already has an interface with a minimum of 4 line outputs and 8-channel ADAT out. IK ran a sale on their iLoud monitors this spring, so I saved $100 EACH on those -- the sale was a huge incentive for me to take the Atmos plunge now. (As a bonus, I really like mixing stereo on the MTMs as well, and I love that you can just plug in the IK microphone to each monitor and they’ll self-calibrate). As I’m sure people know, Presonus also has fine monitors in this price range.

So I know 4 grand ain’t exactly cheap, and this isn’t something to do on a whim. And you can spend a lot more than I could afford on a higher-end system. Just wanted to give my perspective.